Posted
This question touches on other threads but I think it might be worthwhile exploring it as a separate issue.

My evangelical background taught that feelings cannot be relied upon and are no basis for believing in God. Yet, as I see it now, my church offered no reasonable arguments for believing (yeah, I’ve got the Systematic Theology books, used to read them before going to sleep). ‘Have faith, brothers and sisters’ is what we were supposed to teach.

After 60 years in the church I realised that I could no longer ‘make sense’ of GOD. 'Faith' didn't work anymore, ‘Reason’ did not convince me.

I suppose that I now rely more heavily on feelings, recognising that sometimes they can be unreliable. I can ‘feel’ beauty in nature, music, people and so on. I cannot feel GOD.

I’m not sure whether I am a black and white or an all shades of grey person, possibly I move along the spectrum from time to time. Yet I am certain that all gods are created within the imaginations of people – and I can live with that. No amount of arguing (metaphysical or otherwise) works for me. I don’t get it and I get bored if I try to get it.

How much do others ‘allow’ their feelings to operate when thinking about GOD?

Posted
I think, for me, it is all feelings, because there cannot be any empirical proof of God - either his existence or his nature. It can't, or God is merely a product of our logic.

I too had the evangelical "don't trust your feelings" thing and it is bad and dangerous, because it is important to make sure that we don't abuse our feelings, we don't ignore them when they tell us things are wrong. Rejecting our feelings leads to abuse.

The thing is, feelings are not reliable. But our rational self isn't either. We don't have a reliable way of understanding God, of knowing about him. He is not a slot-machine. We have to use our hearts and out minds, we have to use everything that we have to engage with God, to understand him. And even then, we will not always get it right - we should always be prepared to learn.

Posted
I'd say that one's feelings are 100% reliable, it's just that our rational minds can misinterpret, or even willfully deny them. (As far as the evangelicals go, their attitude doesn't surprise me in the least).

As far as 'God' is concerned, then what it basically comes down to for me is the conception of God which my feelings have led me to, and how far that 'works' within the context of a regular church service (regardless of whatever I might think about the minutiae of official doctrine).

It's ironic, in a way: since my days in evangelicalism there has been something of an explosion in church growth amongst evangelicals in UK and elsewhere, although it's more difficult to find these days as much of the steam has evaporated. (To be clear, it's been much more about 'the circulation of the saints' than about making new Christians.) This growth has emphasised 'feelings' insofar as styles of worship have been exuberant (even over the top IMO) and relied heavily on people having a good time / feeling good. And some of the things that have gone on are not at all 'reasonable' to me and to many folk. (Think Toronto Blessing and gold teeth, let alone 'Apostolic' ministry.)

So, Holy Smoke, I can relate to what you say But sometimes I think other people are worshipping something completely different, and maybe that's something they've constructed in their own minds.

And, Schroedinger's Cat, you are so right The thing is, feelings are not reliable. But our rational self isn't either.

Posted
The classical view of evos from non-evos is that the former are constructing a kind of synthetic happiness, and responding to that (by 'clapping', etc.), and in the process, are denying their real feelings, and hence, blocking out any kind of real spiritual experience.

But I'd be interested to know how you think our feelings are unreliable - perhaps you mean that they can sometimes betray us when we wish to put on a front of calmness or authority?
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged

Posted
I'm intrigued at the association of anti-feelings with evangelicalism. I've always tended to feel that whilst there's a strong thread of argument and reasoning within evangelical preaching, and approach to scripture, feelings are huge when it comes to worship, sharing, and quite often the overall tone of meetings, particularly the large scale ones (Spring Harvest, various conferences etc.). There's a weird conflict between being anti-feeling yet relying very heavily on emotional commitment and expression to get the ra-ra going.

quote:Originally posted by Holy Smoke: The classical view of evos from non-evos is that the former are constructing a kind of synthetic happiness, and responding to that (by 'clapping', etc.), and in the process, are denying their real feelings, and hence, blocking out any kind of real spiritual experience.

Are you confusing evangelicals with pentecostals/charismatics? Because I never saw evangelicals clapping in my decade as an evangelical.

quote:Are you confusing evangelicals with pentecostals/charismatics? Because I never saw evangelicals clapping in my decade as an evangelical.

Most non-evos do. Having been in neither a pentecostal/charismatic church, or a good old straight-laced evangelical church, they imagine they are all one and the same!

But I can assure you, and I am sure Mousethief and lots of others could too, that they are very much two different things. Both believe non-believers will go to Hell, both believe in the inerrant Bibical books (yes, all of them) but Pentes/charismatics do it with waving hands, words from God, great singing and sppontaneous prayers, while evangelicals, in my experience, are more formalised, prayers from front and a more or less burning desire to rescue you from Hell.

Posted
ISTM that feelings get unreliable where there is 'brain-washing' and / or mimicry - and there's plenty of both in all sorts of churches in my experience. Music plays a large part in this manipulation.

On 'feelings' in evangelical churches. I do tend to lump together old-style evangelicals, charismatics and pentecostals, recognising this as a generalisation but that they are different expressions of the same 'Bible-believing' / 'Bible-based' theology. In my "good old straight-laced evangelical church" we had feelings! The sermon or service was 'successful' if it was 'uplifting' or if we were 'blessed'. We had testimony times when we expressed our feelings of joy or whatever when we got converted. We had our hymn sing-alongs. More recently, some such churches have got to accept tongues-speaking, I am told. And many have swung to a charismatic expression, of course. Yet it was confusing for us: we were discouraged, but not forbidden, to attend the local Gospel Hall in their Sunday night meetings which were very much more exuberant and did a lot for our feelings!

Posted
I think there is a difference between feelings as a guide to knowing God and discerning his will, (A Bad Thing) and feelings as a passionate expression of love for God (A Good Thing).

It is ironic that the problems with feeling - that they can be manipulated and are unreliable - are precisely the reasons why they work so well in worship to make people think they have experienced God.

Posted
And yet the human heart is the seat of God. It is the portal through which the holy spirit enters our lives. Reason needs to be used as part of discerning where it is truly leading, certainly, but to slam it shut is to become decidedly spiritually "tight arsed", to quote H A Williams.

--------------------Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

quote:Originally posted by ThunderBunk: And yet the human heart is the seat of God. It is the portal through which the holy spirit enters our lives. Reason needs to be used as part of discerning where it is truly leading, certainly, but to slam it shut is to become decidedly spiritually "tight arsed", to quote H A Williams.

Not wishing to be rude but some of us, by reason (or lack of it) and feelings (plenty of them), reject this totally.

quote:Originally posted by ThunderBunk: And yet the human heart is the seat of God. It is the portal through which the holy spirit enters our lives. Reason needs to be used as part of discerning where it is truly leading, certainly, but to slam it shut is to become decidedly spiritually "tight arsed", to quote H A Williams.

Not wishing to be rude but some of us, by reason (or lack of it) and feelings (plenty of them), reject this totally.

As is your right, but like all certainty, it is perpetually vulnerable to the tide.

--------------------Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Posted
ThunderBunk: within the context of this thread and particularly the last few posts, you came across to me as rather prescriptive, even proselytising. That was what got to me. But as I said elsewhere, I may be paranoid.

quote:Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo: ThunderBunk: within the context of this thread and particularly the last few posts, you came across to me as rather prescriptive, even proselytising. That was what got to me. But as I said elsewhere, I may be paranoid.

I should probably have quoted Schroedinger's Cat's post, in that in fact I was trying to do something close to the opposite, by pointing out that I experience God's way in as being through the heart, meaning that that reason, at least intellection, cannot provide the filter SC was referring to because faith doesn't have to pass through it. If anything, in my experience, attempts to make it do so can do the opposite by keeping the paranoia in and letting the hope out, which is the polar opposite of growth as a "human being fully alive".

All of this comes with a massive YMMV caveat, and certainly no desire to beat people over the head with my experience. In that respect, I am am on tenterhooks waiting for the next name change amnesty.

--------------------Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

quote:Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat: I think there is a difference between feelings as a guide to knowing God and discerning his will, (A Bad Thing) and feelings as a passionate expression of love for God (A Good Thing).

Certainly a difference, but I would swap round your 'good' and 'bad' things, but YMMV, of course.

quote:It is ironic that the problems with feeling - that they can be manipulated and are unreliable - are precisely the reasons why they work so well in worship to make people think they have experienced God.

The key again is discernment - where do the feelings originate from? Do they come from the quiet voice within, or have they been artificially implanted by the revivalist tub-thumper or the mawkish sentimentalist? In the former case, IMO at least, they are totally reliable, it's just that our reason and our old habits of thought usually get in the way, hence the importance of establishing (in Christian terms) a discipline of prayer and meditation. (At least, that's the way I see it)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged

Posted
Thunderbunk - I would agree with you, but was trying to explore the Traditional Evangelical approach, where feelings are bad in terms of faith (and I have been taught this regularly), but within some areas, seem to be good in worship.

Personally, if I don't experience God in my emotions, my heart, my feelings - all of those areas that the Traditional Evangelical model says I should ignore - then He is nowhere, because rationally, I cannot offer any evidence to believe in him that works for me.

quote:Originally posted by Holy Smoke: The classical view of evos from non-evos is that the former are constructing a kind of synthetic happiness, and responding to that (by 'clapping', etc.), and in the process, are denying their real feelings, and hence, blocking out any kind of real spiritual experience.

Are you confusing evangelicals with pentecostals/charismatics? Because I never saw evangelicals clapping in my decade as an evangelical.

I'm speaking from a British perspective, where evangelical is (popularly, at least) seen as synonymous with 'happy-clappy', mainly because they are the most visible (and audible) species of evangelical, and are held responsible, at least in part, for putting off sensible, intelligent people from exploring Christianity. (Whether or not that is true is another matter...)
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo: I can ‘feel’ beauty in nature, music, people and so on. I cannot feel GOD.

I agree, Mark Wuntoo. Well, I couldn't feel him when it really counted.

I think that feelings are fairly reliable, and are a good basis for believing or not believing in God. When I say "fairly reliable", I try to also use reason and common sense if I'm making a decision about something. But I accord more weight to the feelings.

Then again, the importance of feelings surely differs from person to person according to their personality. I am much more centred on emotions and relationships than reason and logic. Other people are more fact-focussed.

quote:Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat: I think, for me, it is all feelings, because there cannot be any empirical proof of God - either his existence or his nature. It can't, or God is merely a product of our logic.

quote:Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo: I can ‘feel’ beauty in nature, music, people and so on. I cannot feel GOD.

I think that is a helpful distinction.

As a matter of interest, how would you respond to the words of this hymn (by Percy Dearmer):

"God is good, God is truth, God is beauty--praise him!"

Is he conflating two things which ought to be kept separate, do you think?

I wouldn't sing it. It recognises GOD which I don't. I think I understand your question but, for me, there is no GOD so I cannot praise him/her/it. I do not need to praise or thank anything for beauty, just enjoy it. Doesn't mean I am not grateful / thankful. (NOW, that's a dilemma I have been struggling with! Can I say that I am grateful / thankful if there is nothing to direct that to? I don't know. Any ideas, anyone?).

quote:Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo: (NOW, that's a dilemma I have been struggling with! Can I say that I am grateful / thankful if there is nothing to direct that to? I don't know. Any ideas, anyone?)

There is a thread about this somewhere.

But I reckon you can certainly be thankful - there doesn't have to be an object for you thanks imo.

quote:Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo: NOW, that's a dilemma I have been struggling with! Can I say that I am grateful / thankful if there is nothing to direct that to? I don't know. Any ideas, anyone?

I have been having this dilemma too, Mark Wuntoo! I have a friend who believes in the "energy of the universe" - putting positive energy like thanks to the universe out there, and getting positive energy back - that sort of thing. I don't fully understand it, but it's the closest I have come to resolving this dilemma so far.

quote:Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo: Can I say that I am grateful / thankful if there is nothing to direct that to? I don't know. Any ideas, anyone?

I have a friend who believes in the "energy of the universe" - putting positive energy like thanks to the universe out there, and getting positive energy back - that sort of thing. I don't fully understand it, but it's the closest I have come to resolving this dilemma so far.

I am studying the importance of pursuing positive emotions for physical and mental health, things like gratitude lists and gratitude walks are widely recommended. Many secular sources suggest these practices with minimal or no hint of the gratitude being directed at any supernatural source.

Most intriguing perhaps is Martin Seligman's "three good things" exercise (he is credited with inventing "positive psychology".) Ask your search engine, lots of people endorse it, a clinical study shows it more effective than several other methods in long term changing self talk and view of life to more positive.

The exercise is: at end of day, list three good things that happened that day and a causal reason why they happened. (Not the deepest cause or the whole chain of causation back to the formation of the universe, just any one of perhaps many contributing causes.) We had ice cream for dessert, yum! Cause? I asked hubby to stop and buy some after work. I enjoyed a walk in the sun. Cause? I made myself get up and go outside instead of ignoring the beautiful day to focus on chores. I got to bed on time for a decent full nights sleep! Cause? I set my computer to remind me an hour ahead to shut down.

I think it is normal to be grateful - call it being glad of something if you like - without reference to any god. I passed the driver test, yea! A friend invited me to a card party, what fun! It's a beautiful day, that is so welcome.

It's about learning to notice and celebrate good things instead of a common habit of focusing on problems. It's culturally easy to "miss" noticing and delighting in the good in our lives because of habitually focusing on the problems. "I passed the test, now I have to do some of the family driving chores; I don't have time to party with friends, I need to do laundry and clean house; a sunny day means it's hotter and drier than usual and I'll have to water the garden twice instead of once, grr."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat: Thunderbunk - I would agree with you, but was trying to explore the Traditional Evangelical approach, where feelings are bad in terms of faith (and I have been taught this regularly), but within some areas, seem to be good in worship.

Personally, if I don't experience God in my emotions, my heart, my feelings - all of those areas that the Traditional Evangelical model says I should ignore - then He is nowhere, because rationally, I cannot offer any evidence to believe in him that works for me.

I have to agree with your logic; the problem I have is that I don't know that I experience God in my emotions either. I can feel love, wonder, longing, all sorts of things. Some people say that is experiencing God. Perhaps it is, but if it is, how does it differ from experiencing these emotions in a Godless universe?

quote:Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:How much do others ‘allow’ their feelings to operate when thinking about GOD?

I have two distinct modes of operation concerning God. On one hand, I think about God in very much the same way as I do with my maths or natural science. It's a process of derivation and, yes, speculation, but with heavy emphasis on intellectual rigour and precision. Faith here basically supplies axioms and guidelines for the intellectual process. On the other hand, I "think" about God in a poetic-mystical way. It's difficult to describe, but in general it boils down to raising up a particular internal state, a mode of experiencing rather than a specific experience. Various ways can be used to get there, but it is all about "tuning in". This thinking about God is not very declarative. It can speak to things, but it speaks more to me, and can be quite emotional (I "tear up" a lot with this). If it does speak to things, then it's usually more dealing with attitudes and relations than with concrete facts (not "this is so" but "it would be better more like this"). Faith here supplies a basic underlying trust necessary to "let go" in particular settings. I can sort of tell the "internal censor" to go and have a coffee break, because we are in safe waters.

I think both modes should integrate more, but I find that this is quite difficult to achieve. However, I think this is at least partly due to an unbalance in frequency and intensity in my practice.